There was a long and rambling food analogy that didn’t make it into our review of the second semi-final. It would have been something about Finch’s innings providing a decent amount of substance without really affecting the quality of the meal/Australia’s performance to any great extent.

We also highlighted where India went wrong. If you listen to Shane Warne, his ilk and probably most modern coaches, cricket matches are decided not by ability, but by the degree to which the combatants display nebulous qualities like ‘energy’ and ‘intensity’ and whether or not they ‘back themselves’.

As a writer, we back ourself to call Warne a guff-talking dullard whenever necessary, but we can’t promise that we’ll do so with either energy or intensity.

9 Appeals

In the nebulous qualities department, I fear for New Zealand on Sunday.

We were reliably informed that both South Africa and New Zealand left everything out on the pitch in Auckland on Tuesday.

That being the case, I cannot see how the New Zealand team can have much to offer at the MCG on Sunday.

The Aussies, on the other hand, have momentum and back themselves. Those nebulous qualities should be relatively transferable between Sydney and Melbourne, even with the shorter turn-around time.

I really want New Zealand to win on Sunday, but if they do win, I shall start to doubt the veracity of the statement, “we left everything out on the Eden Park pitch”. I wouldn’t want to have been lied to by my chosen team for the final; moreover my fifth or sixth-favourite international cricket side generally.

Could someone wiser/more level headed than me please help to reconcile this cognitive dissonance?